Re: Actually looking at the code (GConf vs. BonoboConfig)

On Thu, Aug 30, 2001 at 05:57:18PM +0200, Martin Baulig wrote:
> You still don't understand the problem.

Yes, I don't understand the problem.  Because it doesn't exist.

OK, you say the problem is that in the future we will be able to call gconfd
using the corba API.  Yes?  And what is stopping us from doing that if
we use GConf library now.  Nothing, not even binary compatibility.  Also
I've heard several times that Havoc doesn't want to expose a corba api to the
gconfd, and that the library WILL be supported/maintained in the future.
We're not getting into a dependency with an unknown future here.

The other thing is that I don't see a reason why calling the gconfd by a
corba API directly from gnome-libs solves anything.  It's a transparent (and
should be a transparent) change.  We still depend on GConf being installed,
else we'd have broken the platform.

What is the exact difference for users of libgnome* if it uses GConf library
or calls the gconfd by corba?  Not much.  Except one small bit.  Bonobo
requires an init that does launch stuff.  GConf doesn't require it, you can
no launch/contact any daemons until you actually need them.

So I as one libgnome* user won't be able to use libgnome* if we use the
bonobo approach in gdm.

If we do use bonobo approach in libgnome* there will be less init clutter,
less code to maintain, faster startup, no need to init bonobo if you don't
need it or use it.  And all that we'll end up with is a dependency on GConf
which we'll have anyway.  We cannot break this depenendency anyway without
substantial breakage to the platform.  Even if we use CORBA and
bonobo-config or any other in-vogue technology.


George <jirka 5z com>
   Beat on the brat, beat on the brat, beat on the brat, with a baseball bat.
                       -- Ramones

[Date Prev][Date Next]   [Thread Prev][Thread Next]   [Thread Index] [Date Index] [Author Index]